Rosalie S. Abella

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an application for first contract arbitration after the employer, a boarding school, proposed a "notional recall" of striking teachers as a condition of settlement.

The proposal would have paid a select group of teachers but kept replacement workers in the classrooms until the end of the school year, excluding key union organizers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's proposal was deliberately obstructive, lacked reasonable justification, and was motivated by a desire to avoid concluding a collective agreement and returning union supporters to work.

The Board held that the employer violated sections 15, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act, directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration, and ordered the immediate reinstatement of the excluded union organizers.

The complainant, a 65-year-old employee, alleged that the union violated its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by negotiating a collective agreement that reduced the automatic retirement age from 70 to 65.

The union had agreed to the age reduction as an inducement to younger workers in exchange for their support in prioritizing improved, indexed pensions for retirees.

The Board held that the union's decision was based on a rational balancing of competing interests within the bargaining unit.

The Board concluded that the union's conduct was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent company violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to sign a collective agreement after all terms had been accepted.

The company admitted it withheld its signature because it hoped the settlement would avert a strike by two other bargaining units, which did not occur.

The Board found that the company violated section 15 by resiling from the agreed-upon terms and directed the company to execute the agreement.

The Globe and Mail decided to contract out its Ontario highway delivery runs and lay off its drivers to save costs.

The union alleged that the contracting out to independent carriers constituted a sale of a business or that the entities were related employers under the Labour Relations Act.

The union also alleged unfair labour practices when the Globe refused to award delivery contracts to four laid-off employees after the union indicated it might assert they remained employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the applications, finding no sale of a business or related employer relationship, as the Globe merely transferred a like function to independent contractors.

The Board declined to grant remedial relief for the alleged unfair labour practices, noting the Globe's actions were a response to the union's late assertion of rights that would have undermined the legitimate business decision to contract out.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration pursuant to section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that the employer failed to make reasonable or expeditious efforts to conclude a collective agreement.

The Board found that the employer's conduct, including refusing to present a monetary package, sending ill-prepared negotiators without authority, and reneging on previous proposals, demonstrated a failure to make reasonable or expeditious efforts.

The Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) and Extendicare filed cross-complaints alleging bad faith bargaining.

Local bargaining unit members signed a memorandum of settlement with the employer without the required signature of ONA's central Employment Relations Officer, contrary to ONA's constitution and established bargaining practices.

The employer was aware of ONA's practice and had been explicitly warned by the central representative not to negotiate directly with the local committee.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the local committee lacked actual or ostensible authority to bind ONA.

Consequently, no valid collective agreement existed.

The Board found the employer bargained in bad faith by circumventing the union, while ONA did not violate the Act by refusing to recognize the void agreement.